The Senate is changing the language of a resolution to authorize the president to use force in Syria:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders have reached an agreement on the language for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria for up to 90 days — but with no “boots on the ground.”
Kerry hinted that things could change, and when Senators erupted in protest, he sought to soften his language, saying their limiting language was fine with him:
There’s no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for American troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for. I don’t want anybody in the media or elsewhere to misinterpret that,” Kerry added.
"Within the authorization" the president wants for this initial limited strike. But what about outside of that?
Sure, I don't think the president wants to directly intervene in the civil war with troops (I agree, BTW), but Kerry did not in fact rule out "boots on the ground," as the expression goes (Army or Marine troops in large formations, rather than special forces).
Listen to more of what Kerry said from this article:
"Let's shut the door now," Kerry said. "The answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war."
So, to be clear, no boots on the ground "with respect to the civil war." What might another aspect be? Well, chemical weapons proliferation.
And unless we are lucky, that would be no small operation given the scope of the problem and the variety of installations and the level of opposition we'd face from Syrian government forces and even al Qaeda terrorists who might like to sweep up some themselves.
Look, I support hitting Syria. So if I had to I can't imagine voting no on a resolution authorizing the president to act. But I also think that this should be in the context of harming Assad by aiding the rebels with supplies and intelligence and training. I fear the president won't use effective force, which is heightened by the amazing revelation that the president still hasn't followed through on his promise to aid rebels!
In June, the White House authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to help arm moderate fighters battling the Assad regime, a signal to Syrian rebels that the cavalry was coming. Three months later, they are still waiting.
The delay, in part, reflects a broader U.S. approach rarely discussed publicly but that underpins its decision-making, according to former and current U.S. officials: The Obama administration doesn't want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current stalemate.
How cynically far from "responsibility to protect" is that?! We just want to arrange a stalemate?
Yeah, friends have to be really happy to see us willing to fight to their last drop of blood. Now we can add "bleeding from behind" as our national strategy.
Enemies can draw comfort that we've adopted the motto, "when you strike a king, stalemate him."
Sheer. Rock-pounding. Stupidity.
And the idea that it is easier to engineer a stalemate that keeps the jihadis, Assad, and the non-jihadi rebels around rather than try to engineer a non-jihadi victory that allows us to then help them defeat the jihadis (we could unleash the special forces and drones, couldn't we?) is just nonsense. "Fine tuning" support is fantasy. It's tough enough helping a side you want (or least want to lose, if you prefer) to win actually win without pretending to that level of precision in application of force.
Didn't we manage that in Western Europe in 1918? How'd that stalemate and negotiated end to war work out in the end?
Anyway. Secretary Kerry did not commit the Obama administration to renouncing ground war. And I still think our best retaliation is defeating Assad by assisting the non-jihadi rebels. So with all my reservations, I'd vote to pass the resolution. Though others might vote "present," I will not avoid taking a stand on the issue.
